Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Brutha: literally wrong in every sentence. It's a wonderfully compact example of the Gish Gallop; so much wrongness crammed into so little space that you'd spend ten times as many sentences just briefly refuting and correcting his post. And he can't learn because we've been through all this crap dozens of times before. Check his post history if you don't believe me.

I think this is absolutely crazy. Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking the question, "where are the jobs?"

That's it. That's literally the only thing he said in response a question about action on climate change.

That is the only response you ever hear whenever any plan is made to lessen the impact of pollution on the environment. Acid rain? But jobs! Kyoto accord? But the economy! There won't be much of an economy left if conditions keep deteriorating beyond a recoverable point for human survival.

Government environmental policies, among others, pushed most of our heavy industry overseas.

No, Republican backed and Democrat approved tax laws that rewarded corporations for moving jobs overseas pushed most of our jobs overseas. Stanley, the tool company, not only no longer manufactures anything in the USA, they moved their corporate headquarters overseas for tax purposes several years ago and are no longer an American company, but you don't see that mentioned on any of their packaging. Apple, Microsoft, and virtually every other Fortune 500 company has been hoarding wealth overseas for years, rather than invest it in America or even pay it in dividends. The only thing surprising about the location of the new Boeing 787 line is that it's in North Carolina instead of Mexico.

I'd like someone to explain to me how humanity is causing climate change that is NOT warming. I get wheel's of confusion desperate attempts to show that CO2 causes warming. Okay, let's say it does. So when the Earth doesn't warm despite spiking CO2 levels, like right now and also the 1940's; but in fact cools--how is said cooling humanities fault? If CO2 warms AND cools, then why do we bother? Why the great demand to crush the evil "Carbon economy" if it doesn't appear to matter a hill of beans anyway? If carbon warms and only warms, then how can climate change that is not warming be blamed on humanity? We already killed aerosols.

The latest forecasts are that the earth will warm a whopping 1-2 degrees at most in 100 years or so. Big deal, compared to the proposed remedy of forcing all but the "green elite" back to a caveman lifestyle.

Citations please, because every peer reviewed piece of, you know, SCIENCE disagrees with you. The globe is getting hotter overall, and climate is tending toward extremes (precisely as predicted). Literally everything you say in your post is just flat-out incorrect.

As I say - if you've discovered that all the people who've spent their lives researching this are wrong, then please post your data and wait where you are for your Nobel prize.

I think this is absolutely crazy. Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking the question, "where are the jobs?"

That's it. That's literally the only thing he said in response a question about action on climate change.

That is the only response you ever hear whenever any plan is made to lessen the impact of pollution on the environment. Acid rain? But jobs! Kyoto accord? But the economy! There won't be much of an economy left if conditions keep deteriorating beyond a recoverable point for human survival.

Government environmental policies, among others, pushed most of our heavy industry overseas.

No, Republican backed and Democrat approved tax laws that rewarded corporations for moving jobs overseas pushed most of our jobs overseas. Stanley, the tool company, not only no longer manufactures anything in the USA, they moved their corporate headquarters overseas for tax purposes several years ago and are no longer an American company, but you don't see that mentioned on any of their packaging. Apple, Microsoft, and virtually every other Fortune 500 company has been hoarding wealth overseas for years, rather than invest it in America or even pay it in dividends. The only thing surprising about the location of the new Boeing 787 line is that it's in North Carolina instead of Mexico.

This. Wages, healthcare (HEALTHCARE!!!!!), etc push up costs far more than any regulation, let alone env regulation alone. It's just another straw man for the small government fetishists to rail at.

Reducing the consumption of energy would free up money for creating jobs in the economy. A large % of carbon reduction could be done by efficiency improvements and energy consumption reduction. This would all be a net +ve for the economy. But look at the hysterics thrown by the right over something as utterly sane as fuel efficiency standards.

Would you rather your great-grandchildren were free to gumble about the polution, or afraid to question the taxes they pay for their clean air?

I'd rather they be free to openly debate which approach is best, and have a say in the decision making - unlike us.

]Because those are the only options... Sigh.

It was presented as an either/or - either we're concerned about the government spying on us OR we're concerned about the environment. The reply was that our great-grandchildren would probably prefer clean air in a totalitarian society. I'm with you, I'd rather they be free to openly debate the best approach to being stewards of our planet. And, unlike us, I'd like them to have an actual say in those decisions. Hell, Obama and Congress have no say in those decisions, let alone us. The President and Congress could have a say, but that would require a spinal transplant that most government officials refuse to undergo.

Would you rather your great-grandchildren were free to gumble about the polution, or afraid to question the taxes they pay for their clean air?

I'd rather they be free to openly debate which approach is best, and have a say in the decision making - unlike us.

]Because those are the only options... Sigh.

It was presented as an either/or - either we're concerned about the government spying on us OR we're concerned about the environment. The reply was that our great-grandchildren would probably prefer clean air in a totalitarian society. I'm with you, I'd rather they be free to openly debate the best approach to being stewards of our planet. And, unlike us, I'd like them to have an actual say in those decisions. Hell, Obama and Congress have no say in those decisions, let alone us. The President and Congress could have a say, but that would require a spinal transplant that most government officials refuse to undergo.

If it came down to something that black and white, I would take a totalitarian state where global warming was being effectively addressed. Governments can be changed relatively easily and quickly - compared to climate. That said, I don't believe that such a binary choice exists.

Wheels: Please, PLEASE provide your evidence showing the earth warming since 1998. Since, apparently no one else can find it. Not the giants of global warming, the Dr. Jones and the Michael Manns. They would love to find it. But all they can do is postulate that their "missing heat" is being absorbed by the oceans where we cannot measure it.

You said everything I stated was a lie. I stated that the earth has not warmed since 1998. You therefore must be claiming that there has been no "pause" in global warming. Please demonstrate your proof of much greater temperatures, worldwide, since then. Or even since 2000.

Uncontrovertable proof, please. Proof widely accepted. Because even the NYT states that the earth has either stagnated or cooled since 1998; surely your evidence of them being wrong must be inspiring.

I think, Wheels, that it's YOU that cannot learn. The so called "consensus" is crashing around you. Papers advocating ruinous global warming have to be retracted or explained, or are shown to be based on falsities. The "it's warming, PANIC!!!" part of even the IPCC has turned into "well, maybe a degree or two at the most."

Is it a single peer reviewed paper to refute them all? No but it sure name drops quite a few people and prominent establishments that don't agree and seemingly support with evidence that the climate hasn't warmed since 1998. Unfortunately, the politics of climate change can't and won't accept that because it doesn't support the political agenda.

Brutha was using 1998 because there is peer reviewed evidence of a warming trend up until that year. Since then, not so much but I am not the science editor and I didn't delve too far beyond the article.

Quick challenge: Walk the other path. Hunt, dig and assemble the references used on the other side of the argument. Write an article that you don't necessarily believe in. Show that you know the other side of this equation exists and write what you've learned about it. Hell, discuss the potential benefits of warmer climates like opened shipping lanes in the Arctic or better plant yields because the atmosphere is rich in CO2. Or is every year we go up a half degree, one more foot in the grave of civilization? As long as the discussion is one sided, there's never going to be a real discussion on what action, if any to take.

Has the earth warmed since 99? Not statistically significantly. Since 97? Again, probably not (though I do recognize the 98 El Nino that caused temperatures to spike that year).

Of course, you will bring out a data series somehow, so I will just state this in support for my position:

Quote:

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

Source: here based off of data from the skepticalscience site, a noted pro AGW site.

Now, I'm not claiming 18 years, I just said since 1998.

More: noted scientist Judith Curry on the global warming "pause" and the collapse of the scientific consensus: here, which also contains links to stories in The New Republic and also the Economist (hardly bastions of historical global warming skepticism). Do note that apparently the vaunted scientific consensus now appears only to be that greenhouse gasses have a warming effect--something that I don't know if anyone disbelieves.

One reason why I don't believe the AGW stuff: link, where we don't even know how the water cycle--atmospheric water and the interplay with the ocean and the atmosphere--how does that affect temperatures? If we can't get that right (let alone whether clouds heat or cool things down!)-well, it's a tad premature to worry about the carbon content.

Here is an article from Science; behind a paywall, but you can read a summary here. 4 separate models; each giving drastically different answers for things like rain and so forth. If we can't even get that right, how the heck can anyone trust any of these models when it comes to predicting the future?

More generally, what makes you think i haven't looked at the skeptic arguments in detail? There's a difference between examining arguments (like the ones made in the article you linked to) and finding them lacking/inaccurate/distortions, and not having read them at all.

And, for the record, i am NOT going to write an article that i don't think is accurate, which is what you seem to be calling for in saying "Write an article that you don't necessarily believe in."

Source: here based off of data from the skepticalscience site, a noted pro AGW site.

Worth looking at the methodology:"We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative."So, basically, there could be shorter periods with statistically significant warming; they're simply selecting for the best dates they can cherry pick where it doesn't show any. So, that doesn't answer my questions.

1.) Even if climate change is a myth (which, by the way, has ALWAYS been the correct term, "global warming" is a bit of a misnomer), why would we be against developing new tech and jobs. I haven't seen a single credible argument that has convinced me that this wouldn't happen should we pursue these alternative energies.

2.) The Earth is (essentially) a closed system with finite resources. If we continue expending fuels that are NOT RENEWABLE, we're going to be in trouble. If we continue displacing breathable atmosphere with non-breathable atmosphere whilst simultaneously destroying the greenery that keeps us oxygenated, we're going to be in trouble.

Sooo...why not address these two concerns and take the politics out of it? I mean, you know politics are getting ridiculous when people actively avoid buying "Earth Friendly" products because of their political affiliation: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -labeling/

It was presented as an either/or - either we're concerned about the government spying on us OR we're concerned about the environment. The reply was that our great-grandchildren would probably prefer clean air in a totalitarian society. I'm with you, I'd rather they be free to openly debate the best approach to being stewards of our planet. And, unlike us, I'd like them to have an actual say in those decisions. Hell, Obama and Congress have no say in those decisions, let alone us. The President and Congress could have a say, but that would require a spinal transplant that most government officials refuse to undergo.

It was the people on the "let's ignore everything else because Eric Snowden" side of the argument who posed this false dichotomy in the first place, so don't pin this on those of us who think we can fight totalitarianism *and* climate change at the same time. Seriously, go read posts #1 and #2.

People are quick to paint this as a political ploy to divert attention, but don't forget that the opposite tactic works too. There will *always* be another scandal, or another crisis to justify putting this on the back burner yet again. Those folks might want to be a little more circumspect about whether they aren't also playing into the hands of someone with an agenda as well.

Has the earth warmed since 99? Not statistically significantly. Since 97? Again, probably not (though I do recognize the 98 El Nino that caused temperatures to spike that year).

Of course, you will bring out a data series somehow, so I will just state this in support for my position:

Quote:

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

Source: here based off of data from the skepticalscience site, a noted pro AGW site.

so what you're saying is, "if i ignore enough data, i can demonstrate i don't have enough data"? because that's a pretty cretinous argument.

or maybe, "six separate analyses of global temperature, from such disparate organisations as the University of Alabama, NASA, the University of East Anglia and a private research company specialising in the analysis of satellite microwave data, all show statistically significant warming in the last 20-25 years"? because again, i'm not sure that supports your case in the way you apparently think it does...

1.) Even if climate change is a myth (which, by the way, has ALWAYS been the correct term, "global warming" is a bit of a misnomer), why would we be against developing new tech and jobs. I haven't seen a single credible argument that has convinced me that this wouldn't happen should we pursue these alternative energies.

2.) The Earth is (essentially) a closed system with finite resources. If we continue expending fuels that are NOT RENEWABLE, we're going to be in trouble. If we continue displacing breathable atmosphere with non-breathable atmosphere whilst simultaneously destroying the greenery that keeps us oxygenated, we're going to be in trouble.

Sooo...why not address these two concerns and take the politics out of it? I mean, you know politics are getting ridiculous when people actively avoid buying "Earth Friendly" products because of their political affiliation: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -labeling/

Geez, people.

Point 2 is thermodynamically wrong. The Earth is an open system for both energy and matter.

Worth looking at the methodology:"We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative."So, basically, there could be shorter periods with statistically significant warming; they're simply selecting for the best dates they can cherry pick where it doesn't show any. So, that doesn't answer my questions.

*blink* Are you seriously arguing that there has been steady warming in the last 15 years or so? I thought it was pretty clear, and even admitted by the apostles of global warming, that in fact there has been a pause, the earth has not been warming significantly for a decade at least. That science is, you know, settled. Have you missed the articles in the New Republic, the New York Times, and others fully acknowledging the "pause" in warming? Did you even look at my other links? True, they try to explain it away, but if you are seriously arguing that the earth has steadily warmed since 1998, with no hiatus, then wow. I did not cherry pick anything. They said, in essence, that they started with today and went back as far as they could until there was evidence of warming. It's not my fault that they had to go back to the mid 90s before they found statistically significant warming. How is that cherry picking? Unless you want to show significant warming since 2000? If so, I'm sure Jones, Trenberth and Mann would love to talk to you.

If you are arguing there has been some warming since 2000, then you have to acknowledge that there has been corresponding cooling trends too.

Looking at Lignes comment, I am amazed at the apparent unwillingness to admit the scientific fact that there has not been any warming within the last ten to 15 years. My quote of six separate temperature series points out that any temperature changes are within the margins of error. Ligne is trying to move the goalposts from 1999 back to 1989 or so. That's intellectually dishonest. In fact, I might say that this effort to ignore the current temperature hiatus smacks of--dare I say it?-- science denialism on the part of the AGW supporters.

1.) Even if climate change is a myth (which, by the way, has ALWAYS been the correct term, "global warming" is a bit of a misnomer), why would we be against developing new tech and jobs. I haven't seen a single credible argument that has convinced me that this wouldn't happen should we pursue these alternative energies.

2.) The Earth is (essentially) a closed system with finite resources. If we continue expending fuels that are NOT RENEWABLE, we're going to be in trouble. If we continue displacing breathable atmosphere with non-breathable atmosphere whilst simultaneously destroying the greenery that keeps us oxygenated, we're going to be in trouble.

Sooo...why not address these two concerns and take the politics out of it? I mean, you know politics are getting ridiculous when people actively avoid buying "Earth Friendly" products because of their political affiliation: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -labeling/

Geez, people.

Point 2 is thermodynamically wrong. The Earth is an open system for both energy and matter.

Granted we get a steady influx of solar energy, but do we really want to rely on massive meteorites hitting the earth as a source of renewable matter?

Worth looking at the methodology:"We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative."So, basically, there could be shorter periods with statistically significant warming; they're simply selecting for the best dates they can cherry pick where it doesn't show any. So, that doesn't answer my questions.

*blink* Are you seriously arguing that there has been steady warming in the last 15 years or so?

No, i'm trying to find out if you're capable of answer the questions i asked. The answer i seem to be getting is "probably not."

If you are asking has the earth warmed since 1999 and 1997, then no, not significantly. Some parts may have, some parts have not (witness Great Britain this year). I provided evidence, which you just hand waved away in a manner that your side normally claims "skeptics" do. I provided my evidence, now its up to you to prove that I am wrong. You have just claimed that the data is cherry picked. Prove it. Show me the data that shows the Earth is significantly warmer now than in 1997 or 1999. Without cherry picking data, please.

You seem to be saying that I am wrong when I claim a pause in warming since 1999. Is that correct? Because you have never said what your point is. I thought it was common knowledge that there has not been any warming since 99. Everyone admits it, except apparently Ars staffers?

Edit to reply to Wheels:

I don't know what you guys are getting at. Let's say that it's been flat: There's been no warming. That is not what AGW has been hyping. Let's say that there has been cooling. That is REALLY not AGW, is it? I'd love to see you explain a small cooling trend and when it will end (and why we should trust your new prediction), but all I claim is that there has been no significant warming over the last 13-15 years. As it happens, I think the evidence is starting to show a bit of a cooling trend over the last couple of years, but it's certainly not a "proven" thing.

And that's not my problem to square, it's the pro AGW side. You guys have to come up with why your theory has fallen flat on its face.

Edit: Put the shoe on your foot: What is YOUR story of what's happened since 1999? Has it continued to get warmer? Gone flat? Gotten cooler?

Looking at Lignes comment, I am amazed at the apparent unwillingness to admit the scientific fact that there has not been any warming within the last ten to 15 years. My quote of six separate temperature series points out that any temperature changes are within the margins of error. Ligne is trying to move the goalposts from 1999 back to 1989 or so. That's intellectually dishonest. In fact, I might say that this effort to ignore the current temperature hiatus smacks of--dare I say it?-- science denialism on the part of the AGW supporters.

muh wuh? do you even understand the concept of statistical significance? if you keep on cutting out data till you can't see the signal because it's hidden among the noise, you've not demonstrated that the signal isn't there. all you've demonstrated is that you can't see the signal among the noise.

muh wuh? do you even understand the concept of statistical significance? if you keep on cutting out data till you can't see the signal because it's hidden among the noise, you've not demonstrated that the signal isn't there. all you've demonstrated is that you can't see the signal among the noise.

Okay, I'm confused. I have no idea what you are trying to claim. I've said, repeatedly, that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1999. That means that from January 1999 until now, the earth is not significantly warmer. It's not 1 degree warmer. It's not 2 degree's warmer (aside from the obvious seasonal differences from January to June). Some places might be warmer, while others are cooler. But overall, unlike what AGW proponent in the late 90's were claiming as ironclad scientific fact, the earth has not gotten hotter.

If there has been any warming, it's been within the margin of error (after adjusting for volcanos, el Nino, etc), so it's not significant.

I don't know what you guys are getting at. Let's say that it's been flat: There's been no warming.

Let's not. Let's instead say that there isn't enough data to say for certain. Because that's what the lack of statistically significant trends (warming/cooling/indifferent) implies. It doesn't imply that warming has stopped. For us to say warming has stopped, we would need a statistically significant trend of either no overall change in temperatures or cooling. If you aren't prepared to produce one, then crowing about "no warming" is wronger than wrong.

Quote:

I'd love to see you explain a small cooling trend and when it will end (and why we should trust your new prediction), but all I claim is that there has been no significant warming over the last 13-15 years.

Don't be so modest all of a sudden. You're claiming more than that. You're saying that warming has stopped. If your only argument was that there hasn't been statistically significant warming in the data you're looking at, then OF COURSE NOT YOU IDIOT because it's more than likely that you're not looking at enough data. But that's not where you stop. What you're doing is going back to a certain point where there is no statistically significant warming and THEN using this to say:

Brutha wrote:

... the earth ain't warming. Hasn't since 98.

When you make a positive statement like this about what the climate is doing and appeal to the data to make your case, you need to make sure that the data actually supports your position. You're not doing that. You are actually doing the very thing that you accuse others of doing; claiming something that the data does not support. The data doesn't show that the Earth stopped warming. According to your own argument, you would need to look at the data and produce a statistically significant trend to say that. You don't have it. You can't say that warming has stopped.

Quote:

As it happens, I think the evidence is starting to show a bit of a cooling trend over the last couple of years, but it's certainly not a "proven" thing.

Why isn't it a proven thing? Hint: for the same reason everybody is onto you about.

Quote:

And that's not my problem to square, it's the pro AGW side. You guys have to come up with why your theory has fallen flat on its face.

There already are reasons. You just haven't been paying attention to them, or have been dismissing them. As you've done for several years through this same song and dance.

Quote:

Edit: Put the shoe on your foot: What is YOUR story of what's happened since 1999? Has it continued to get warmer? Gone flat? Gotten cooler?

The same as it has been since you came in here posting this schtick a while back: you are not looking at enough data. You (or rather, the people you prefer to get your opinions from) are intentionally going to a point where there is not enough data and saying "See? Where's the warming HERE?" That's called cherry-picking. It is one of the many ways to lie with statistics.

Beyond the simplistic trend from a few simple datasets you're falsely appealing to, there are other problems. We have good reason to believe that the Earth is still warming even if the signal is not sharp enough to produce a stat.sig. trend over very short time scales. For one thing, other factors besides mere CO2 accumulation play a part in the temperature over short timescales. Things like ENSO, volcanoes, and solar irradiance. Over a long enough period of time, these factors tend to be cyclical (or have no overall trend themselves, like volcanoes) and so cancel their influences out. El Nino generally balances out La Nina. Solar activity goes up, comes back down, generally not making a trend either way. When you look at the data with their influences mostly removed, you see that the underlying trend continues even over short timescales. Using this method you can derive stat.sig. trends over periods as short as 15 years (because you've removed some of the noise to find the underlying signal). They show warming. They show a warming trend that is indistinguishable from the previous 15 years of warming. This strongly indicates that several of the short-term-only factors that influence global temperatures have temporarily dampened the warming signal with a negative forcing in recent years. This is not only NOT unexpected, it's something that climate models can and do demonstrate in their individual model runs. We frequently see periods where there is a decade or more of slowed or even negative temperature increase, but that trend is always embedded in the middle of an overall upwards trend. It's temporary, not a harbinger of cooling to come.

Another reason is that recently, an extraordinary amount of energy has been accumulating in the lower oceans. So much so that it dwarfs the amount of warming in the atmosphere by approximately nine times. This shouldn't be happening unless the dynamics of our atmosphere really is changing to keep more of the sun's energy in the climate system. Instead of going into the atmosphere and producing a warmer temperature in the surface data, the extra energy has been shunted into the deep sea for a while.

There are ways to tell if the climate changes we see are due to us or other, non-anthropogenic factors. If this was not man-made global warming, nights would not be warming faster than days. We would not see an increased amount of downward longwave IR radiation coming from the atmosphere, where the GHGs have stalled its escape into space. We would not see the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere cooling and shrinking as the lower reaches retain more of the energy that would have passed up to them. And when we tally up the significant climate drivers (both natural and man-made), we see that the natural forcings have been cool, neutral, or only slightly positive for decades whereas human-caused forcings have been abundantly, overwhelmingly positive over the same time period.

In short, pretty much everything that we know about that could account for discernible temperature trends is pointing towards an outsized human component to explain recent warming. That picture has not changed for recent years. There is no reason to think that the warming will stop. You can't even say it's stopped for now, because you don't have a statistically significant trend to back that assertion up, nevermind all the real-world physics and data that won't let it happen. Temperatures are not just dots on a graph, they are caused by real-world things that we can (and do) measure, evaluate, and account for. You have not shown that you understand this in the least. You don't even understand the "dots on a graph" part, since you're trying to claim a behavior that isn't statistically significant.

easy. from the WUTWAT blog you linked to: "We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative." so in other words, they kept the data that supported their theory, and ignored the data that didn't. a textbook example of cherry-picking.

Quote:

You seem to be saying that I am wrong when I claim a pause in warming since 1999. Is that correct?

the pre-1999 trend is statistically indistinguishable from the post-1999 trend. as in, there may or may not have been a change in trend, but it's not possible to say either way: there could be something there, or it could be an artefact caused by the once-in-a-century El Niño in 1998 skewing the trend before upwards, and the trend after downwards.

Quote:

And that's not my problem to square, it's the pro AGW side. You guys have to come up with why your theory has fallen flat on its face.

where does the theory say we should expect statistically significant trends over ~15 years?

Quote:

Put the shoe on your foot: What is YOUR story of what's happened since 1999? Has it continued to get warmer? Gone flat? Gotten cooler?

it's impossible to say, because you're ignoring too much data to be able to separate the signal from the noise. your question is simply meaningless.

think of it another way: i chuck a load of bricks into the little pond in my garden, and i immediately measure how the water level has changed so i can work out what volume the bricks displaced. obviously, what with the waves from the wind and the splash, the water level is going up and down. but valiant and doughty experimentalist that i am, i take some measurements over the course of a minute or two, then go off run the numbers. turns out there was no statistically significant change in water level. does it make sense for me to conclude that the bricks had zero volume?

easy. from the WUTWAT blog you linked to: "We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative." so in other words, they kept the data that supported their theory, and ignored the data that didn't. a textbook example of cherry-picking.

An easy way to have avoided the "cherry-picking" part would be if they had gone back as far as they had to in order to get ANY statistically significant result. Not just the one they were looking for. Instead they went for the trend they wanted, significance be damned. Hope this helps clarify for the learning-challenged.

Okay, so what you guys are saying is that 1) we have to ignore any temporary cooling effects or any cooling effects and then we'll still see warming. I guess if you wave away cooling data, you'll see warming, that's true.

The other thing you guys are arguing is that it's too soon to tell what's going on. That we haven't had enough time since 1999 to draw any conclusions. Or that the warming signal is still there, just buried under insignificant noise.

But that's not what AGW is about is it? Not "insignificant noise", not "It's too early to tell--just keep waiting and we'll get warming again!" AGW, at least as hyped, is supposed to be a monumental disaster that has to be addressed Right. Now. to prevent irreparable damage. Now the warming signal is buried? The signal and the noise have to be carefully parsed out? We expect decade long cooling trends hidden amongst the rising temperatures? Ligne, what was cherry picked from WUWT? They looked at every month since the mid 90s and added them in. The theory: warming has stalled since the mid 90's. Proof? When every single month from the 90's on is looked at, there's no warming. If they had said, from 95-98 it was flat, and from 2001-2004 it was flat--that's cherry picking.

I love the argument that 15 years is not long enough to determine a trend. Well, from the late 1970s until the mid 90's is only 20 years, yet the data from those years was plenty enough to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of AGW. Now, suddenly, 15 years is not enough time? Well, how much time do we need? 16? 17? 20? 30? How long do we have to go with no warming before we can conclude that there is, in fact, no warming? Help me out here: How long do we have to wait before we can conclude there is a pause? In 2020 are you guys still going to be complaining about noise and "temporary cooling signals?"

Looking at longer term trends-- most of the 20th century warming occurred before the 1940's. From the 1940s to the 70s it was cooling. From the 80s to mid 90s it was warming. Since then, it's been practically flat, and if the last couple of years have any predictive quality it is starting to slightly cool.

Wheels, tell me: how can you determine the "human caused" warming from the natural warming since the Little Ice Age? What amount of our current underlying warming trend is natural, and how much is the AGW adding on top of it?

What happens if Nature decides to start cooling the climate? Is AGW enough to stop it? Apparently not, since you have to admit that any AGW now is being overwhelmed by current temporary signals.

And yet you AGW's haven't even explained the amount of temperature rise we should be concerned about. If it is 1 to 2 degree's Celsius in the next 100 years, who cares? Any given year, an El Nino or whatever will counteract it--or in other words, weather will mean more than climate. Is it 10 degrees? That's scientifically balderdash--no one is claiming that AGW will add 10 degrees in the next 100 years.

By the way, Phil Jones (the guy at the center of the climategate email scandal) is on record in 2010 as admitting that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Source. You are going to argue with him?

Indeed, the UK met office admitted that any warming since 1880 (that's right,1880! ) is not statistically significant. Of course, it took 6 separate questions under penalty of law to get them to finally cough it up.

At least you guys are admitting that if there has been any surface warming since the 90s, it's pretty much unmeasurable. Lots of reasons are advanced as to why (The heat is going into the deep ocean!), but at least you guys are admitting that no measurable warming has occurred on the surface. That's a start.

So my central question is this: AGW proponents have been screaming about how hot we are making the earth now since at least 1988, with James Hansen in front of Congress. There was nothing about a 15 year pause in the early 2000s. Now, we have excuses being offered about the heat going into the ocean, etc. That was not predicted--that suddenly the ocean would soak up the heat. So, what ELSE is out there affecting our climate that has not been predicted? Will we find out that there's some unknown atmospheric transfer of heat? Some other excuse? Can you AGW people guarantee that you are correct that we will experience massive heating driven solely by humanity? There's no more surprises lurking out there? And if not.... then why do you claim the science is settled? It certainly was not settled in the late 1990s, when everyone including the IPCC was predicting massive heating, unrestrained. Oops.

Define "statistical significance" in the context of what you are talking about. Don't look it up. Don't post a link. Do it yourself, in your own words - what you understand it to mean. Precisely and if possible mathematically - because (1) I honestly don't understand what you are talking about, and (2) I don't think that you do either.

easy. from the WUTWAT blog you linked to: "We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative." so in other words, they kept the data that supported their theory, and ignored the data that didn't. a textbook example of cherry-picking.

An easy way to have avoided the "cherry-picking" part would be if they had gone back as far as they had to in order to get ANY statistically significant result. Not just the one they were looking for. Instead they went for the trend they wanted, significance be damned.

i think it's quite telling that their cherry-picks still all show increasing temperatures, even if they're not yet quite significant at p=0.05. short of a huge crash in temperature over the next year or two, we can expect to see stat. sig. warming since 1990/1994/1995 in the very near future.

of course, we can also expect Watts and his "sceptics" to then switch to "no stat. sig. warming since 1991/1995/1996, AGW is disproved!".

By the way, Phil Jones (the guy at the center of the climategate email scandal) is on record in 2010 as admitting that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Source. You are going to argue with him?

it's gone midnight and i can't be arsed to argue with this tidal-wave of bum-gravy right now, so i'll just point out that your talking point is two years stale now*. Jones was correct when he said that there was only about a 94% chance that the planet had actually warmed (rather than the increase being simply due to chance)....back in 2010. it became statistically significant at the 95% level at the end of that year, when the (record-breaking) 2010 temperature results came in.

* with this in mind, i'd like to amend the end of my last post to read:

Quote:

of course, we can also expect Watts and his "sceptics" to [s]then switch to "no stat. sig. warming since 1991/1995/1996,[/s] keep claiming "no stat. sig. warming since 1990/1994/1995, AGW is disproved!", because why stop claiming something just because it's not true?

Since when does investing in new technologies, researching better methods of energy production, building new power plants, maintaining and upgrading the power grid, laying new wire, building most of this new tech here in the US, and generally doing all sorts of new things HURT our job market?

Last I checked, new investing and new technologies combined with new production and new infrastructure means MORE JOBS, not less.

Climate change cannot be stopped. Think about it. If Obama cannot convince Hong Kong to extradite Snowden, how is he going to convince mainland China to forgo economic growth in order to stop climate change? It won't happen. It's a non-starter.

Better to focus on adaptation, and how the rich world can best help out poorer countries.

I hear a lot about how China is doing nothing.

In fact they are a global leader in solar panels, they are currently trialing a carbon price / emissions trading, and recently announced the death penalty for some instances of environmental pollution. It's a massive train and it doesn't turn around quickly, but they really are pushing on the brakes.

Using them as an excuse to do nothing isn't just getting old, it's also factually incorrect.

Since when does investing in new technologies, researching better methods of energy production, building new power plants, maintaining and upgrading the power grid, laying new wire, building most of this new tech here in the US, and generally doing all sorts of new things HURT our job market?

Last I checked, new investing and new technologies combined with new production and new infrastructure means MORE JOBS, not less.

Yeah I was reading one of those crazy alarmist sites recently that stated we were heading for:

1. Sea level rises of "tens of meters"2. Katrina size hurricanes would become 7x more likely3. Temperature rises were expected to be 5.3C

It is sites like these that give science a bad name, falsely promoting worst case scenarios as the norm, and falling for Revkins "single paper syndrome" on a regular basis. Just mindlessly reprinting press releases from academia looking for PR.